IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Jagtar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-50961-2021(O&M)
Decided On : 03-02-2022
Bail - Criminal Law - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Sections 323, 325, 341, 34 IPC (Sections 302, 307, 201, 120-B IPC added later on)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including murder and attempt to murder. The petitioner was alleged to have facilitated the main accused to flee from the scene of the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and that the confessional statement and other statements did not attribute any injury to the petitioner. The court also noted the delay in the statements given by witnesses and the likelihood of a prolonged trial due to the pandemic.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in the crime and the delay in the trial due to the pandemic.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of evidence attributing any injury to the petitioner and the potential delay in the trial as key factors in granting bail.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - CRM-2791-2022
Allowed as prayed for.
Annexures P-3 to P-5 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-M-50961-2021
2. This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR no.86 dated 21.04.2021 registered under Sections 323, 325, 341, 34 IPC (Sections 302, 307, 201, 120-B IPC added later on) at Police Station Sadar Samana, District Patiala.
3. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Jaspreet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh who had stated that one Sohi Baba along with two unknown persons in a Verna car had come to thehouse of the complainant and inquired about his father and in the meantime Sukhdev Singh, i.e. the father of the complainant, rode on a TVS scooty to come to his house but when he saw the said three persons outside his home, he got scared and turned around his scooty towards the field and tried to run away. When, the three persons in the Verna car started chasing the father of the complainant, the mother of the complainant told the complainant to follow the said persons and the complainant saw that his father was being beaten up by the said three persons with rods and dandas and after leaving him unconscious, they escaped from the spot. It had been alleged in the FIR that one of the accused persons is Sohi Baba and the others could be identified upon seeing them. During investigation, confessional statement of Amarjeet Singh @ Sohi Baba was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and as per the said statement it was said Amarjeet Singh @ Baba, Bachittar Singh @ Ladi and Arun Kumar @ Chhotu, who had inflicted injuries upon the father of the complainant whereas the present petitioner and one Karan were sitting in the Duster car and when the Verna car had got stuck, it was then that the said Amarjeet Singh sat in the Duster car and fled from the place of occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even as per the prosecution case, the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and a perusal of the Fir would show that there were three persons who were stated to have inflicted injuries upon the deceased Sukhdev Singh (father of complainant). It has been submitted that the said three persons, even as per the prosecution case, are Amarjeet Singh @ Sohi Baba, Bachittar Singh and Arun Kumar @ Chhotu. It has further been argued that even as per the confessional statement of Amarjeet Singh @ Sohi Baba under Section 27 ofthe Evidence Act and the statement of Lovepreet Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C, which have been recorded on 29.05.2021 and 12.06.2021 respectively, the petitioner was not the person who had caused injuries to the deceased Sukhdev Singh and had allegedly only helped the main accused person in fleeing from the spot in the Duster car, in which the petitioner along with one Karanbir were waiting. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.06.2021 and there are 28 prosecution witnesses and none of them have been examined yet and the trial is likely to take time moreso, in view of the present pandemic. It has also been stated that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the bail petition and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of offences and he along with Karan, had facilitated the main accused to flee from the scene of crime, in the Duster car.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and as per the FIR, there were three persons who had inflicted injuries upon Sukhdev Singh, father of the complainant. One of the said persons was named as Amarjeet Singh @ Sohi Baba and the other two persons were stated to be unknown persons. All three persons were stated to be in a Verna car. As per the confessional statement of Amarjeet Singh @ Sohi Baba dated 29.05.2021
The lack of evidence attributing any injury to the petitioner and the potential delay in the trial due to the pandemic were key factors in granting bail.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a trial to resolve issues of identity and contradictory statements before granting bail.
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to the petitioner's lengthy custody, lack of prior naming in the FIR, and completion of investigation, while ensuring witness safety.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presence of sufficient prima-facie evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused persons is a valid ground for rejecting a bail appli....
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the charges and the risk of evidence tampering, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty with justice.
The decision emphasized the importance of considering discrepancies in witness statements, lack of evidence against the accused, and prolonged custody without significant trial progress in granting r....
Grant of Bail – Investigation completed – Conditions imposed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of specific attribution of any injury to the petitioner and the prolonged custody of the petitioner were key factors in granting the ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.